Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of food products


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

List of food products

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:N The article serves no purpose beyond nutrition facts label. The food product list fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTGUIDE and is endless. This information is suited for specialist Wikis or nutrition guide websites. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 00:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Nutrition facts label article fails to recognize and acknowledge that nutrition facts on a single food product label are not stand alone as a matter of meal preparation with respect to fullfilling any diet plan but exist in conjunction with nutrition facts found on other food product nutrition facts labels. Such circumstance obligates that nutrition facts for more than one food product be published together which the List of food products article accomplishes. Unfortunately, without otherwise recognizing and ackowledging such circumstance many readers have no idea what the nutrition facts label is for or how it is to be used in conjunction with other foods for meal preparation. The List of food products article is an essential part of developing a remedy to eliminate this confussion as to exactly what the nutrition facts label is for. A single food product rarely by itself makes a complete and balance meal. The List of food products is part of the effort necessary to point this fact out and to provide readers with a solution, which the Nutrition facts label article fails to provide. 71.100.1.192 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently the article contains food products (peanut oil, cane sugar, and egg white among others) specifically intended to fulfill in proportionate combination not only any diet plan but to test algorithms developed to combine such macro-nutrients in the specific proportions required by any diet plan. 71.100.8.49 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not esoteric like an article on phantom micro-nutrients might be. 71.100.8.49 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The nutrient information provided by nutrition facts labels is legally binding. For this reason it may be considered factual. The UPC and PLU codes serve in the same capacity as reference citations which identify the source and make the information verifiable. While price information varies over time and location it is also derived from register receipts which serve to both identify and to verify the source. Because these sources are published as legally binding documents the information the article contains is neither statistical nor original research unless you are now going to include reference citations as original research. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a useless WP:CFORK and unmaintainable per WP:LC #6. The above concern is addressed in detail in the existing article Human nutrition, which can be linked to instead of creating a new article. The nominated article is also unusable for statistical analyses: the list (copied directly from the source, with pointless inclusion of the UPC and PLU codes that vary from product to product) is very limited, prices vary between brands and markets and are constantly changing, and amounts of nutrients also vary between brands of the same food product. Also remember that Wikipedia is made to be read by people, not computer programs (although some advocate limited amounts of metadata in articles such as GPS coordinates). PleaseStand (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The list can serve some statistical analysis purposes with as few as 1,500 entries but that is not the purpose of the list. The list is to provide a resource for users to be able to explore various combinations of food products in order to create a balanced and complete meal which a single food product can not do. UPC, PLU and price information serve as reference citation to source information for the purpose of verification. If articles like human nutrition and nutrition facts labels included such information and did not leave readers hanging then perhaps the list would not be necessary to overcome the lack of information. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite. I expected to find that there were better and more comprehensive articles here, but we do not seem to have one. the article human nutrition mentioned above contains no specific data at all, so i do not see how the present article cvn possibly be a fork of it. All that we do have that is comparable is  tables in some but by no means all individual nutrients -- Vitamin C but not Vitamin E, and information for a very few individual foods such as Mango -- see the  about 250 links to the Template:Nutritional value  This article is a very good idea, but it would take a great deal of development. A list of this sort should include all the foods with an individual article in Wikipedia--and the data in this article could in fact be compiled automatically from the template.   That would make it discriminating, not just a random list.  a  includes many of the functions of an almanac, and they have always included such tables. It is not how to do it: it gives information from which by several removes  someone can figure out what they intend to do, but that's true of all Wikipedia  articles and lists on practical subjects. OIt does not violate directory--if it included every possible commercial and non commercial food like the nutritional databases do, then it would, but we will not even be in range for something like this for many years. That information changes is true, and affects the need to update essentially all the articles in the entire contents of Wikipedia  .  DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete While i agree that a list approximating what this list may be trying has inherent validity, i dont really understand what this specific list is actually trying to communicate.I really dont understand why this article contains such a jumble of foods, and lists PRICES? a list of different whole  foods (not composites like mac and cheese) with comparisons of kcals per standard serving (say 100 g), trace nutrient levels, fat, carbs, protein, etc would be a huge undertaking and probably a wonderful article. this one doesnt seem to be salvageable towards this goal. if someone wants to step forward with a bold effort to create a substantive article as DGG described, great. but if not, this one is incomprehensible and unmanageable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the list is to fulfill the need to use more than one food, in fact the need to use a combination of food in the right proportion to create and actual balanced and complete meal. Price information serve to date the entry. Obviously if you found a price of $0.50 for a can of Black Beans you would immediately suspect the entry in need of updating, perhaps for other information as well. The list of nutrients precisely follows the order provided by the nutrition facts label and the UPC and PLU code serve as source reference citations. If you want to see how the information is used then click on the link to the usage example in the external links section. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am quite bothered by that statement above, and if you are writing it for this purpose, you should reconsider. We do not have articles advocating any particular diet plan, and by your repeated use of saying that the purpose is to show the need to use more than one food in the right proportion--however logical it may be--it appears that you are in fact engaging in some sort of advocacy--and perhaps even choosing your examples to illustrate your thesis. .  DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel at such a loss. I feel like the countless times I've tried to get Vista to overcome its limitations only to realize assigning it a black triage tag and returning to XP was the only thing that was left. No one here seems to know what diet plan is. You seem to think it is some kind of product based on commercialization of a particular diet plan being sold in the form of a product when in fact you can find your diet plan here without obligation or charge. You seem to have no clue what nutrient values are for which are presented in a uniform manner by the Nutrition facts label. You seem to have no idea that they must be used in conjunction with other nutrient values provided by nutrition facts labels on other food products. Were this a diet planning class no one here would survive one minute. I'm truly sorry but I feel the Wikipedia has fooled me into thinking that the people here who have a voice in which articles to keep or to delete know nothing about the topic over which they can rule. Its like I've run across a cargo cult which knows only how to mimic and copy and nothing else. Unfortunately, your failure to comprehend what has been presented so far means you are not educable but reliant upon 2nd grade chatter for your education as if the teacher were gone and would never come back. I feel somewhat like Sidney Poitier in the movie "To Sir, with Love". I feel like a WWII pilot who must finish tying on the black toe tags, leave the cargo cult behind and return to civilization. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that by labeling "us" as not educable, you are engaging in personal attacks. Most of us on WP are highly educated, and i am very well aware of current nutrition recommendations, as well as some alternative views on nutrition that have basis in research but have not been fully accepted by mainstream nutritionists. I believe i could teach a class on nutrition, but thats beside the point. This AFD is not about whether we at WP are qualified nutritionists. Please show how this article is not a promotional piece for a particular approach to nutrition (which i may in fact agree with, if i could understand it better). This article to me reads similarly to an article on, say, the bible, written from the point of view of a particular christian belief system. writing like this cannot be allowed on WP. as i said above, this article may have an idea at its core which is perfectly appropriate for WP. even an article on a particular theory of combining foods can be written, as long as it shows sources to notable nutritionists advocating it, and any controversies or nutritionists NOT advocating it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. This appears to be an indiscriminate statistical chart on a very broad topic. There are so many different types of food in the world, you cannot possibly make a single list of them. Dew Kane (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is not intended to be all inclusive although the more entries the greater the possible number of combinations of food products that can be analyzed for balanced and complete meal preparation. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and by the author's admission within the article that the list cannot be meaningfully maintained or expanded by authors other than him or herself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an entirely erroneous idea. Because these sources for the list contents are published as legally binding documents the information the article contains is neither statistical nor original research. Furthermore, by the very nature and diversity of the information a single Wikipedia user can not possibly visit every grocery store to add new and different food products to the list. Yes, maintainable of the list requires all interested users and not just a single user, which is what the Wikipedia is all about. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely unmaintanable - there is an almost infinite variety of food products in the world. Package sizes and cost stats are silly, as both vary enormously around the world and between manufacturers, and will be ever-changing. Also, "The process has been automated with an offline bot that requires re-posting of the entire list. Please consult the first author for details." is simply not permissible. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia is based on shared responsibility for maintainable. However, since price is dependent upon date and location it merely serves as a secondary source means of verification. As is the list contains less than fifty entries which are quite able to support a large number of combinations necessary to produce a balanced and complete meal. Adding new entries merely presents the opportunity for wider diversity of selection and would be impractical if a foolish attempt to included every single food product available were made. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * as mentioned, we can have a good standard for listing, which is simply those foods with Wikipedia  articles. That;'s the same discrimination standard we use in most lists. For those who think this impractical, why?    DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it could be, but all the stuff about pricing and package sizes should go, and I think it would probably really need to only include primary foodstuffs rather than manufactured products - and it certainly can't be dependent on the original author running an automatic offline bot. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  20:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic fails WP:NOT as it does not have a verifiable definition in accordance WP:LISTS. Lists without a verifiable definition are mere listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of synthesis, and looking at the definition of this list, it appears to me to be a synthesis of sources, and therefore it is an entirely novel and original list topic that has never been published before. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.